Monday, March 28, 2011

This is no way to pay back the Obama Administration for dismissing the 2008 voter intimidation charges. The leader of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP), Malik Zulu Shabazz has now officially joined the likes of Louis Farrakhan, who railed on the Obama administration for opposing Gadhafi. Last week, Farrakhan rhetorically asked Obama, 'who the hell do you think you are?'

Now Shabazz has been caught going on an 'N' word / 'Uncle Tom' rant against the administration. Via The Blaze:

This is a clip of Donald Trump with CNN's Wolf Blitzer in 2007 in which Trump sang the praises of Hillary Clinton's health care plan. For the record, the differences between HillaryCare and ObamaCare are so nuanced they had trouble drawing any coherent lines of distinction in their debates. I'm inclined to dismiss Trump's prediction at the beginning of this clip in which he insists Hillary would be the next president; a lot of people - myself included - thought so. In hindsight, his assessment of the George W. Bush administration is not that far off either.

Almost as disturbing as his endorsement for HillaryCare is his stated admiration for both her and her husband. The climate that exists in the Tea Party today has absolutely no interest in these games. Trump is feeding the Birthers a lot of red meat these days but in light of the Obamacare disaster, his high regard for Hillary's virtual carbon copy is beyond disturbing and should torpedo any presidential aspirations he may have.

The entire exchange is worth the watch but if pressed for time, fast forward to the 3:45 mark to see Trump endorse the near equivalent of Obamacare.

In light of everything the Obama administration has done to alienate Saudi Arabia since the now infamous bow Obama gave to the Saudi King Abdullah, the specter that the bow was simply an attempt to disarm the king should not be off the table. In the arab world, separating friends and enemies isn't as simple as Shiite vs. Sunni. In the case of Saudi Arabia, it has long held similar views to the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood but it also doesn't want them in charge.

As a result, Saudi Arabia is made very uncomfortable when it sees the Obama administration continuing to take the side of the Muslim Brotherhood in the various uprisings in the Muslim world; intentional or not, the consequences of White House policy have been to embolden the Brotherhood, which very much would love to topple the House of Saud. Another example is the relationship developing between the Brotherhood and Iran, which views Saudi Arabia as a virtual enemy. Harken back to 2009. Did the United States support the uprising in Iran? No.

The Saudi monarchy, which itself has been loathe to introduce democratic reforms, watched with deepening alarm as the White House backed Arab opposition movements and helped nudge from power former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, another long-time U.S. ally, according to U.S. and Arab officials.

That alarm turned to horror when the Obama administration demanded that the Saudi-backed monarchy of Bahrain negotiate with protesters representing the country's majority Shiite Muslim population. To Saudi Arabia's Sunni rulers, Bahrain's Shiites are a proxy for Shiite Iran, its historic adversary.

"We're not going to budge. We're not going to accept a Shiite government in Bahrain," said an Arab diplomat, who spoke frankly on condition he not be further identified.

Saudi Arabia has registered its displeasure bluntly. Both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates were rebuffed when they sought to visit the kingdom this month. The official cover story was that aging King Abdullah was too ill to receive them.

The true intentions of the Obama administration have not been easy to discern but one thing is clear. He tends to pick favorites and when he picked the rebels in Libya against Gadhafi, he threw several of his oldest and closest associates under the bus, Louis Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright among them. It is quite curious that virtually every stance this administration has taken in the Arab world has served the interests of the Muslim Brotherhood.

See that 'Think Progress' logo in the top right hand corner of this video with presidential hopeful, Herman Cain? That means the Soros-funded group thinks it's captured Cain in a 'gotcha' moment in which he is exhibiting some type of religious discrimination in this clip. Cain is asked if he would appoint a Muslim to any position in government - including any judicial appointments - if he was president. His response was quite clear: Absolutely not. I find it interesting that when the radicals on the left are captured in moments like this, they smear those who capture them and deny what they said is what they meant (Frances Fox-Piven as an example). In the case of Cain, he makes it clear that he's being very clear.

If you visit the Think Progress post on this, you'll note that the author cites Article IV of the U.S. Constitution as a refutation of Cain's Islamophobia. Here is that portion, with their emphasis on the last sentence:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

The problem that Think Progress and anyone else runs into when they cite the Constitution to support Sharia Law is the political nature of Islam. Once that is understood, Sharia Law is no longer a First Amendment issue or an Article IV issue. It's an Article VI issue:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Sharia Law is designed to be the supreme law of any land in which it is implemented. That's the problem the liberals have in defending it.